Centre for Internet and Society

Parliament panel blasts govt over ambiguous internet laws

praskrishna — 2013-03-28T08:37:30Z

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation has come out with a report in which it has lambasted the government and asked it to make changes to IT rules that govern internet-related cases in India.

This article by Ishan Srivastava was published in the Times of India on March 28, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

It said in the report that multiple clauses in the laws had inherent ambiguity and that discrepancies exist in the government's stand on whether some rules are mandatory or only of advisory nature.

The committee said that inherent ambiguity of words like 'blasphemy' and `disparaging', among others, could lead to harassment of people as has happened with Section 66A of the IT Act repeatedly in recent times. Incidents include the arrest of two girls over 'liking' a Facebook post and a defamation case against an individual for an 'offensive' tweet. It has also been used by multiple politicians to suppress voices of dissent by branding them as 'defamatory'.

These ambiguous terms are used in the Intermediary Guidelines rules, passed in April 2011, which the committtee said could lead to legitimate speech being removed. Also, the Standing Committee noted that many categories of speech prohibited by the Intermediary Guidelines rules were not prohibited by any statute, and hence could not be prohibited by the government through these rules. The Standing Committee has asked the government to ensure that "no new category of crimes or offences is created" by these rules.

The committee also said that discrepancies exist in the nature of implementation of these laws. While the government's stand is that Intermediary Guidelines are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation" and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information", the wording of the laws suggest otherwise. In many of the laws, terms like "shall act" within 36 hours are used. The committee said that there was a "need for clarity on the aforesaid contradiction" and "safeguards to protect against any abuse" since it could lead to censorship.

"The government has told the Committee that the rules are for "self-regulation", but they in fact aren't. The rules dictate what content cannot be hosted. And our research found that intermediaries react to fake takedown requests too, just to avoid being liable for their users' content. This is not self-regulation, but government-mandated private censorship," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). CIS is a Bangalore-based non-profit body looking at issues of public accountability, privacy, free expression, and openness, and has consistently argued that many parts of the IT Act are unconstitutional.

The committee also suggested that all evidence relating to foreign websites refusing to honour Indian laws should be made public and a public debate should be encouraged as the internet is a global phenomena. Recently there have been instances of issues between the Indian government and tech giants like Facebook and Google related to censorship and taking down of 'offensive' and 'defamatory' content.

While the government's stand is that Intermediary Guidelines are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation" and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information," the wording of the laws suggest otherwise.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-ishan-srivastava-march-28-2013-parliament-panel-blasts-govt-over-ambiguous-internet-laws

CIS Welcomes Standing Committee Report on IT Rules

pranesh — 2013-04-03T10:54:52Z

The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the report by the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation, in which it has lambasted the government and has recommended that the government amend the Rules it passed in April 2011 under section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

Click to read the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the IT Rules. A modified version was published in CiOL on March 27, 2013.

These rules have been noted by many, including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Society for Knowledge Commons, and many eminent lawyers, as being unconstitutional. The Standing Committee, noting this, has asked the government to make changes to the Rules to ensure that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and privacy are safeguarded, and that the principles of natural justice are respected when a person’s freedom of speech or privacy are curtailed.

Ambiguous and Over-reaching Language

The Standing Committee has noted the inherent ambiguity of words like "blasphemy", "disparaging", etc., which are used in the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, and has pointed out that unclear language can lead to harassment of people as has happened with Section 66A of the IT Act, and can lead to legitimate speech being removed. Importantly, the Standing Committee recognizes that many categories of speech prohibited by the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not prohibited by any statute, and hence cannot be prohibited by the government through these Rules. Accordingly, the Standing Committee has asked the government to ensure "no new category of crimes or offences is created" by these Rules.

Government Confused Whether Rules Are Mandatory or Advisory

The Standing Committee further notes that there is a discrepancy in the government’s stand that the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not mandatory, and are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation", and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information, the rule does not lead to any kind of censorship". The Standing Committee points out the flaw in this, and notes that the language used in the rules is mandatory language (“shall act” within 36 hours). Thus, it rightly notes that there is a "need for clarity on the aforesaid contradiction". Further, it also notes that there is "there should be safeguards to protect against any abuse", since this is a form of private censorship by intermediaries."

Evidence Needed Against Foreign Websites

The government has told the Standing Committee that "foreign websites repeatedly refused to honour our laws", however, it has not provided any proof for this assertion. The government should make public all evidence that foreign web services are refusing to honour Indian laws, and should encourage a public debate on how we should tackle this problem in light of the global nature of the Internet.

Cyber Cafes Rules Violate Citizens’ Privacy

The Standing Committee also pointed out that the Cyber Cafe Rules violated citizens’ right to privacy in requiring that "screens of the computers installed other than in partitions and cubicles should face open space of the cyber café". Unfortunately, the Standing Committee did not consider the privacy argument against retention of extensive and intrusive logs. Under the Cyber Cafe Rules, cyber cafes are required to retain (for a minimum of one year) extensive logs, including that of "history of websites accessed using computer resource at cyber café" in such a manner that each website accessed can be linked to a person. The Committee only considered the argument that this would impose financial burdens on small cybercafes, and rejected that argument. CIS wishes the Committee had examined the provision on log maintenance on grounds of privacy as well."

Government’s Half-Truths

In one response, the government notes that "rules under Section 79 in particular have undergone scrutiny by High Courts in the country. Based on the Rules, the courts have given reliefs to a number of individuals and organizations in the country. No provision of the Rules notified under Sections 43A and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 have been held ultra vires."

What the government says is a half-truth. So far, courts have not struck down any of the IT Rules. But that is because none of the High Court cases in which the vires of the Rules have been challenged has concluded. So it is disingenuous of the government to claim that the Rule have "undergone scrutiny by High Courts". And in those cases where relief has been granted under the Intermediary Guidelines, the cases have been ex-parte or have been cases where the vires of the Rules have not been challenged. The government, if it wants to defend the Rules, should point out to any case in which the vires of the Rules have been upheld. Not a single court till date has declared the Rules to be constitutional when that question was before it.

Lack of Representation of Stakeholders in Policy Formulation

Lastly, the Standing Committee noted that it is not clear whether the Cyber Regulatory Advisory Committee (CRAC), which is responsible for policy guidance on the IT Act, has "members representing the interests of principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject matter as expressly stipulated in Section 88(2) of the IT Act". This is a problem that we at CIS also noted in November 2012, when the CRAC was reconstituted after having been defunct for more than a decade.

CIS hopes that the government finally takes note of the view of legal experts, the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Parliamentary motion against the Rules, and numerous articles and editorials in the press, and withdraws the Intermediary Guidelines Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules, and instead replaces them with rules that do not infringe our constitutional rights.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities. It was among the organizations that submitted evidence to the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation on the IT Rules.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-standing-committee-report-on-it-rules

Press controls ‘send wrong message to rest of world’

praskrishna — 2013-03-26T04:51:54Z

Britain could trigger an international media crackdown if the Government goes ahead with plans for a Royal Charter to introduce a new Press regulator, free speech campaigners warned yesterday.

Read the article written by Jerome Starkey from Johannesburg, Francis Elliott from Delhi and David Brown. It was published in the Times on March 21, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Oppressive regimes will use the example of the planned regulation in Britain to justify tighter controls on their own media, it was claimed. Campaigners from across the Commonwealth are preparing to urge the Queen not to approve the Royal Charter when it is presented by the Privy Council on May 8. Senior journalists and campaigners in Africa and Asia accused Britain of “chilling media freedom” by legitimising state interference in the media.

Phenyo Butale, the director of South Africa’s Freedom of Expression Institute, said: “African governments have shown they are uncomfortable with free press acting as a watchdog, holding them to account. A move to statutory regulation in the UK would really be a gift for them.”

In Somalia, one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a journalist, reporters said that they were alarmed by the British plans. “It’s alarming that the British Government is regulating the freedom of its press,” said Mohammed Ibrahim, secretary-general of the Somali Union of Journalists.

Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based organisation that campaigns against the Indian Government’s often heavy-handed attempts to regulate online content, said that the UK had surrendered the moral high ground in an important international debate.

“The UK has traditionally made free speech an important component of their foreign policy and when their own internal actions contradict their external position . . . they no longer have any influence on the Indian situation,” he said.

The Editorial Board of The New York Times wrote that the proposed regulation would “do more harm than good”, adding: “It is worth keeping in mind that journalists at newspapers like The Guardianand The [New York] Times, not the police, first brought to light the scope and extent of hacking by British tabloids. It would be perverse if regulations . . . ended up stifling the kind of hard-hitting investigative journalism that brought it to light in the first place.”

Mumsnet, one of the most popular blogging sites, has sought a guarantee from the Government that it would not be caught by the regulations. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport told the website that it “will ultimately be for the court to decide on the definition of a ‘relevant publisher’ ” covered by the new regulations “but our view is that Mumsnet would not be covered by the new regime”.

Justine Roberts, the website’s founder, has asked to be specifically included in the list of exempted websites.

The House of Lords will vote on Monday on the definition of “relevant publisher” when peers consider new amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill. Some of Britain’s major newspaper and magazine publishers have indicated that they will not join the new regulator.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-uk-jerome-starkey-francis-elliott-david-brown-march-21-2013-press-controls-send-wrong-message-to-rest-of-world

India’s Civil Liberties Crisis: Of Bans, Blocks, Bullying and Biometrics

praskrishna — 2013-03-25T10:39:43Z

Malavika Jayaram will be a speaker at this event which is organized by the Center for Global Communication Studies and will be held at Annenberg School of Communication, University of Pennslyvania, Philadelphia, on March 28, 2013, from 12 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.

Read about the event on the website of the Center for Global Communication Studies.

Unlike the US First Amendment, the first amendment to the Constitution of India actually strengthened state regulation over freedom of speech. Irony aside, the amendment that is considered by many scholars as the first media crisis in post-colonial India has increasing relevance today. Its prioritization of sovereignty and national security over democratic rights and institutions has resulted in a zone of contestation between nation building and free speech. This is playing out through a series of battles involving website blocking, book banning, biometric databases and bullying of all kinds.

In the last few months, an all-girl rock band in Kashmir was silenced, a village in Bihar banned women and girls from using mobile phones, and we had yet another Salman Rushdie controversy. Movies were blocked. Facebook and Google were taken to court for hosting objectionable content. Paintings were removed from an art gallery at the “suggestion” of the police because they depicted Hindu deities as semi-nude. At the same time, there was a drive to digitize governance and to build biometric databases to enumerate and record every individual. The impacts on free speech, anonymity, and privacy were considered fair game in the drive towards progress, inclusion, and maintenance of public order.

The relationship between the citizen and the state is undergoing a radical transformation mediated by the marriage of welfare schemes and commercial interests. The privacy of one’s body and identity is challenged by initiatives to capture fingerprints, irises, faces, and transactions. The heckler’s vote is increasingly powerful in silencing free expression. Civil society is under siege for resisting the onslaught of draconian legislation, arbitrary restrictions, and the banning of various forms of cultural output. Narratives are being constructed that attribute all civic engagement with “western values” and with being mouthpieces of foreign interests.

In this talk, I will give an overview of the strands of discord that are forming the fabric of India’s latest crisis of democracy. I will unpack some of the rhetoric behind the government’s drive to grasp the individual, and make the citizen visible to the state in an unprecedented manner. I will also discuss my experiences working with civil society in India, and the tools and techniques used to engage with policy formation and to adapt to the future of advocacy.

A dual-qualified lawyer, Malavika Jayaram spent eight years in London - with global law firm Allen & Overy in the Communications, Media & Technology group, and then with Citigroup. She relocated to India in 2006, and wears 3 hats as a practising lawyer, a Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and a PhD scholar. As a partner at Jayaram & Jayaram, Bangalore, she focuses on corporate/tech transactions and has a special interest in new media and the arts. At CIS, Malavika collaborates on projects that study legislative and policy changes in the internet governance and privacy domains. As a PhD scholar, she is looking at data protection and privacy in India, with a special focus on e-governance schemes and the new biometric ID project.

A graduate of the National Law School of India, she has an LL.M. from Northwestern University, Chicago. She is on the advisory board of the Indian Journal of Law & Technology and is the author of the India chapter for the Data Protection & Privacy volume in the Getting the Deal Through series, launched this year. She is one of 10 Indian lawyers featured in “The International Who's Who of Internet e- Commerce & Data Protection Lawyers 2012” directory.

She is currently running a research project for Internews, studying internet policy in India. This will produce a landscape overview and interviews with various stakeholders in this domain.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/global-asc-upenn-events-indias-civil-liberties-crisis

Namaste, Mr. Eric Schmidt

praskrishna — 2013-03-21T08:48:48Z

An article by R. Jai Krishna published in the Wall Street Journal on March 20, 2013 quotes Sunil Abraham.

Read the original published by the Wall Street Journal on March 20, 2013.

Sandwiched between a January visit to North Korea and a stop in Myanmar at the end of this week Google Inc.'s GOOG +0.42% executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, is visiting India until Thursday.

The world’s largest democracy might seem to have little in common with the two authoritarian states.

But free speech advocates say recent developments in India are troubling and observers are waiting to see whether Mr. Schmidt addresses them during two events over the next couple of days.

At issue is a debate in India over the limits to free speech. In 2011, India’s government, angered at the spread of inflammatory material online, passed a law that allows it to hold Internet companies liable for “offensive” material posted by users. Parts of the law are being challenged in India’s Supreme Court, which has yet to rule.

In December 2011, India’s then-telecoms minister, Kapil Sibal, urged Google Facebook Inc. FB -2.67% and other Internet companies to screen derogatory material from their sites. The requests came amid official anger over content that parodied Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, president of the ruling Congress party, as well as other leading politicians.

A journalist, Vinay Rai, subsequently filed criminal cases in a Delhi court against Internet firms including Google, alleging material they hosted was defamatory, obscene and promoted enmity among different religious and ethnic groups. The companies are challenging the validity of the case in a higher court. The lower court is expected to begin hearings next month.

Google and the others deny wrongdoing. Google has said it makes unavailable to Indian users any content that violates its terms of services or local laws.

Mr. Schmidt is unlikely to address the ongoing lawsuits. But he might take the opportunity to push India to reconsider its position on free speech, say activists.

“He will obviously make a case..but the government is unlikely to take it seriously,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society. “It’s much more complicated.”

Mr. Schmidt is set to speak at two technology conferences – one organized by the country’s software industry body, the National Association of Software and Services Companies, or Nasscom, on Wednesday, and another by Google on Thursday.

Paroma Roy Chowdhury, a spokeswoman for Google India said: “The Google India team is very happy to host him here.”

Mr. Schmidt’s India visit follows his private visit to North Korea in January where he urged its officials to drop barriers to global Internet access if they hope to develop their economy. He is likely to travel to Myanmar on March 22, after his India trip.

Google is facing other legal challenges in India. They include a federal anti-trust probe on alleged anticompetitive practices by Google’s online advertising business. Google says it has done nothing wrong.

For Google, India is an important market for its Internet services as well as mobile-devices software Android.

Market research firm ComScore Inc. SCOR -0.41% said in June that Google reached 95% of online users in India. “Visitors spent 2.5 hours on Google sites, with YouTube accounting for a major share,” it said.

More and more Indians have started taking to the Internet to express their views. India has about 62 million people in urban areas using social media platforms, according to a recent study by the Internet and Mobile Association of India, a trade body, and market-research agency, IMRB. That is expected to rise to 66 million by June.

Demographically, the report said, the “highest proportion’ of social media usage was among young men and college students, representing 84% and 82% of the total internet users, respectively.

Last year, New Delhi issued a series of guidelines on how government departments should use social media to reach out to people and to ensure public participation in policy framing.

The ruling Congress-led coalition government has now started embracing these networks.

For example, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram earlier this month interacted with citizens during the annual budget proposal using social media platform Google+.

For many, this was seen as a move to counter Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s use of online platforms during his successful re-election campaign late last year. Mr. Modi, widely expected to be named the prime ministerial candidate for the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, is scheduled to attend Google’s event Thursday.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/wsj-r-jai-krishna-march-20-2013-namaste-mr-eric-schmidt

Reply to RTI Application on Blocking of website and Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951

praskrishna — 2013-03-21T07:58:12Z

The Department of Telecommunications sent its reply to an RTI application from the Centre for Internet and Society. The application was sent on December 27, 2012 with reference to blocking of websites and Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.

To
Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II), Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Télécommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

Dear Sir,
Subject: Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005

1. Full Name of the Applicant: Centre for Internet & Society

2. Address of the Applicant

Mailing Address: Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2־C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore 560071

3. Details of the information required

It has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services ("Airtel") and Mahanagar Téléphoné Nigam Limited ("MTNL") have recently blocked access to a number of domain sites for all their users across the country. Airtel has blocked Fabulous Domains (http://www.fabulous.com/), BuyDomains (http://www.buvdomains.com/) and Sedo (http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcome/). MTNL has blocked Sedo (http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcQme/). Subscribers trying to access this website receive a message noting "This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Télécommunications". In this regard, we request information on the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

Does the Department have powers to require an Internet Service Provider to block a website? If so, please provide a citation of the statute under which power is granted to the Department, as well as the safeguards prescribed to be in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Did the Department order Airtel or MTNL to block any or all of the above mentioned websites? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel and MTNL for blocking of websites?
Has the Department ever ordered the blocking of any website? If so, please provide a list of addresses of all the websites that have been ordered to be blocked.
Please provide use the present composition of the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, and copies of all their recommendations.

4. Years to which the above requests pertain: 2012

5. Designation and address of the PIO from whom the information is required

Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II), Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Télécommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

To the best of my belief, the détails sought for fall within your authority. Further, as provided under section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act ("RTI Act"), in case this application does not fall within your authority, I request you to transfer the same in the designated time (5 days) to the concerned authority and inform me of the same immediately.

To the best of my knowledge the information sought does not fall within the restrictions contained in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, and any provision protecting such information in any other law for the time being in force is inapplicable due to section 22 of the RTI Act.

Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail address provided above. This to certify that I, Smitha Krishna Prasad, am a citizen of India.

A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of "Pay and Accounts Officer (HQ), Department of Telecom" payable at New Delhi.

Date. Monday November 26,2012
Place: Bengaluru, Karnataka

Below is the reply received from the Department of Telecommunications for the above RTI application

Government of India
Department of Télécommunications
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road. New Delhi -110 001
(DS-CelI)

No. DIR(DS-II)/RTI/2009																		Dated:ll/01/2013

To,
Centre for Internet and Society,
No. 194, 2-C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore - 560 071

This has reference to RTI application dated 27/12/2012 with reference to Blocking of website and Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951

In this regard it is submitted that Internet Service licensees are to follow the provisions of Information Technology Act 2000 as amended from time to time. Under Information Technology Act 2000, "Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009" were notified on 27/10/2009.(Annexure) Aforesaid notified rules describes the "Designated Officer" for the purpose of issuing direction for blocking for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource under subsection (2) of Section 69(A) of the ACT. Wide Gazette Notification dated 20/01/2010 Group Coordinator , Cyber Law division, Department of Information Technology has been authorized and designated as "Designated Officer".

As per the directions of Group Coordinator, Cyber Law division, under Information Technology Act 2000, instructions for blocking/ unblocking of websites/URLs are issued to Internet Service Licensees.

As per the available information no instruction to Internet Service Providers has been issued for Blocking of http://www.fabulous.com/, http://www.buydomains.com/, http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcome/ and http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcome/ as mentioned in your RTI application.

Copies of Blocking order for which blocking instructions issued by DoT are not being provided are not provided as per Clause 16 of "Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009" which says "Strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof."
With reference to information (Para 4 & 5 of RTI Aplication ) on Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rule, 1951 , the RTI is being forwarded to Dir (AS-III) & CPIO, DoT for providing the information.
The appeal, it any, may be made before Shri Nitin Jain, DDG(DS) & Appellate Authority, Department of Télécommunications, Room No. 1201, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, Nevy Delhi-110 001 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter.

Encl: As above
																							(Subodh Saxena) DIR (DS-II) 011-2303 6860 011-2335 9454

Copy to:

(I) Shri Rajiv Kumar, CPIO & Director (AS-III), DoT, New Delhi

NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 27th October, 2009

G.S.R. 781 (E). — In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (z) of sub-section (2) of section 87, read with sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000 (21 of 2000), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:

Short title and commencement — (1) These rules may be called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access and Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
Definitions. — In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires. —
(a) "Act" means the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000);
(b) "computer resource" means computer resource as defined in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act;
(c) "Designated Officer" means an officer designated as Designated Officer under rule 3;
(d) "Form" means a form appended to these rules;
(e) "intermediary" means an intermediary as defined in clause (w) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act;
(f) "nodal officer" means the nodal officer designated as such under rule 4;
(g) "organisation" means
(i) Ministries or Departments of the Government of India;
(ii) State Governments and Union Territories;
(iii) Any agency of the Central Government, as may be notified in the Official Gazette, by the Central Government
(h) "request" means the request for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource;
(i) "Review Committee" means the Review Committee constituted under rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Designated Officer — The Central Government shall designate by notification in Official Gazette, an officer of the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary, as the "Designated Officer", for the purpose of issuing direction for blocking for access by the public any information generated, transmitted. received,, stored or hosted in any computer resource under sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Act.
Nodal officer or organisation.— Every organisation for the purpose of these rules, shall designate one of its officer as the Nodal Officer and shall intimate the same to the Central Government in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technotogy, Government of India and also publish the name of the said Nodal Officer on their website.
Direction by Designated Officer. — The Designated Officer may, on receipt of any request from the Nodal Officer of an organisation or a competent court, by order direct any Agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public any information or part thereof generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource for any of the reasons specified in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act.
Forwarding of requests by organisation. — (1) Any person may send their complaint to the Nodal Officer of the concerned organisation for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource:
Provided that any request other than the one from the Nodal Officer of the organisation shall be sent with the approval of the Chief Secretary of the concerned State or Union territory to the Designated Officer.
Provided further that in case a Union territory has no Chief Secretary, then, such request may be approved by the Adviser to the Administrator of that Union territory.
(2) The organisation shall examine the complaint received under sub-rule (1) to satisfy themselves about the need for taking of action in relation to the reasons enumerated in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and after being satisfied, it shall send the request through its Nodal Officer to the Designated Officer in the format specified in the Form appended to these rules.
(3) The Designated Officer shall not entertain any complaint or request for blocking of information directly from any person.
(4) The request shall be in writing on the letter head of the respective organisation, complete in all respects and may be sent either by mail or by fax or by e-mail signed with electronic signature of the Nodal Officer.
Provided that in case the request is sent by fax or by e-mail which is not signed with electronic signature, the Nodal Officer shall provide a signed copy of the request so as to reach the Designated Officer within a period of three days of receipt of the request by such fax or e-mail.
(5) On receipt, each request shall be assigned a number along with the date and time of its receipt by the Designated Officer and he shall acknowledge the receipt thereof to the Nodal Officer within a period of twenty four hours of its receipt.
Committee for examinatlon of request.— The request along with the printed sample content of the alleged offending information or part thereof shall be examined by a committee consisting of the Designated Officer as its chairperson and representatives, not below the rank of Joint Secretary in Ministries of Law and Justice, Home Affairs. Information and Broadcasting and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team appointed under sub-section (1) of section 70B of the Act.
Examination of request.— (1) On receipt of request under rule 6, the Designated Officer shall make all reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary who has hosted the information or part thereof as well as the computer resource on which such information or part thereof is being hosted and where he is able to identify such person or intermediary and the computer resource hosting the informalion or part thereof which have been requested to be blocked for public access, he shall issue a notice by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such person or intermediary in control of such computer resource to appear and submit their reply and clarifications, if any, before the committee referred to in rule 7, at a specified date and time, which shall not be less than forty-eight hours from the time of receipt of such notice by such person or intermediary.
(2) In case of non-appearance of such person or intermediary, who has been served with the notice under sub-rule (I), before the committee on such specified date and time, the committee shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer, based on the information available with the committee.
(3) In case, such a person or intermediary, who has been served with the notice under sub-rule (1), is a foreign entity or body corporate as identified by the Designated Officer, notice shall be sent by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such foreign entity or body corporate and any such foreign entity or body corporate shall respond to such a notice within the time specified therein, failing which the committee shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer, based on the information available with the committee.
(4) The committee referred to in rule 7 shall examine the request and printed sample information and consider whether the request is covered within the scope of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and that it is justifiable to block such information or part thereof and shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer.
(5) The designated Officer shall submit the recommendation of the committee, in respect of the request for blocking of information along with the details sent by the Nodal Officer to the Secretary in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary, Department of Information Technology").
(6) The Designated Officer, on approval of the request by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, shall direct any agency of the Government or the intermediary to block the offending information generaled, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in their computer resource for public access within time limit specified in the direction:
Provided that in case the request of the Nodal Officer is not approved by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, the Designated Officer shall convey the same to such Nodal Officer.
Blocking of Information in cases of emergency.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 7 and 8, the Designated Officer, in any case of emergency nature, for which no delay is acceptable, shall examine the request and printed sample information and consider whether the request is within the scope of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and it is necessary or expedient and justifiable to block such information or part thereof and submit the request with specific recommendations in writing to Secretary, Department of Information Technology.
(2) In a case of emergency nature, tne Secretary. Department of Information Technology may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedent and justifiable for blocking for public access of any information or part thereof through any computer resource and after recording reasons in writing as an interim measure issue such directions as he may consider necessary to such identified or identifiable persons or intermediary in control of such computer resource hosting such information or part thereof without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
(3) The Designated Officer, at ihe earliest but not later than forty-eight hours of issue of direction under sub-rule 2, shall bring the request before the committee referred to in rule 7 for its consideration and recommendation.
(4) On receipt of recommendations of committee, Secretary, Department of Information Technology, shall pass the final order as regard to approval of such request and in case the request for blocking is not approved by the Secretary. Department of Information Technology in his final order, the interim direction issued under sub-rule (2) shall be revoked and the person or intermediary in control of such information shall be accordingly directed to unblock the information for public access.
Process of order of court for blocking of Information — In case of an order from a competent court in India for blocking of any information or part thereof generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource, the Designated Officer shall, immediately on receipt of certified copy of the court order, submit it to the Secretary, Department of Information Technology and initiate action as directed by the court.
Expeditious disposal of request - The request received from the Nodal Officer shall be decided expeditiously which in no case shall be more than seven working days from the date of receipt of the request.
Action for non-compliance of direction by Intermediary — In case the intermediary fails to comply with the direction issued to him under rule 9, the Designated Officer shall, with the prior approval of the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, initiate appropriate action as may be required to comply with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 69A of the Act.
Intermediary to designate one person to receive and handle directions — (1) Every intermediary shall designate at least one person to receive and handle the directions for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource under these rules.
(2) The designated person of the intermediary shall acknowledge receipt of the directions to the Designated Officer within two hours on receipt of the direction through acknowledgement letter or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signature.
Meeting of Review Commlttee — The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under these rules are in accordance with the provisions of sub-seclion (1) of section 69A of the Act and if is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred above, it may set aside the directions and issue order for unblocking of said information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource for public access.
Maintenance of records by Designated Officer — The Designated Officer shall maintain complete record of the request received and action taken thereof, in electronic database and also in register of the cases of blocking for public access of the information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource.
Requests and complaints to be confidential — Strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof.

FORM
(See rule 6(2))

A. Complaint

Name of the complainant: --_________________________________________________________________
(Person who has sent the complaint to the Ministry/Department/State Govt./Nodal Officer)
Address: ________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ Pin Code: __________________
Telephone: ________________________ (prefix STD code)
Fax (if any): _______________________
Mobile (if any): ______________________
Email (if any): __________________________________

B. Details of website/computer resource/intermediary/offending information hosted on the website
(Please give details wherever known)
URL / web address: ____________________________________
IP Address: _______________________________________
Hyperlink: ________________________________________
Server/Proxy Server address: ________________________________________
Name of the Intermediary: _________________________________________
URL of the Intermediary: __________________________________________
(Please attach screenshot/printout of the offending information)
Address or location of intermediary in case the intermediary is telecom service provider, network service provider, internet service provider, web-hosting service provider and cyber cafe or other form of intermediary for which information under points (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) are not available.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
C. Details of Request for blocking
Recommendations/Comments of the Ministry/State Govt: ________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
The level at which the comments/recommendation have been approved
(Please specify designation) ________________________________________________
Have the complaint been examined in Ministry / State Government: Y/N
If yes, under which of the following reasons it falls (please tick):
(i) Interest of sovereignty or integrity of India
(ii) Defence of India
(iii) Security of the State
(iv) Friendly relations with foreign states
(v) Public order
(vi) For preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above
D. Details of the Nodal Officer, forwarding the complaint along with recommendation of the Ministry/State Govt. and related enclosures
Name of the Nodal Officer: ___________________________________________
Designation: ______________________________________________________
Organisation: _____________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________ _________

__________________________________________________________

City: __________________________ Pin Code: _________________
Telephone: ___________________________ (prefix STD code)
Fax (if any) _____________________
Mobile (if any) ______________________
Email (if any): ___________________________
E: Any other information:
F: Enclosures:

1.

2.

3.

Date Place Signature

[No. 9(16)J2004-EC]
N. RAVI SHANKER, Jt. Secy

3855GI/09-5

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/reply-to-rti-application-on-blocking-of-website-and-rule-419a-of-indian-telegraph-rules-1951

Freedom Song: Film Screening and Discussion

praskrishna — 2013-03-15T06:51:39Z

Freedom Song, a documentary film produced by the Public Service Broadcasting Trust and directed by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Subi Chaturvedi will be screened at the IIHS Bangalore City Campus on March 21, 2013, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., followed by discussions. Paranjoy will be present for the screening and will answer questions from the participants.

Discussions and arguments on freedom of expression and what should or should not be censored are as old as civilization itself, across the world and in India. In recent years, these debates have acquired new dimensions with the growth of the mass media -- especially the internet. Maintenance of public order, national security, religious tolerance, blasphemy, libel, defamation, invasion of privacy, artistic licence, pornography, obscenity, copyright and other intellectual property rights have all become issues linked to freedom of expression, often under highly contentious and controversial circumstances. Whereas Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of expression as a fundamental right of all citizens, Article 19(2) imposes "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of such freedom. There is no consensus on what constitutes "reasonable" restrictions and/or who or which body should determine what is or should be "reasonable" restrictions on freedom of expression.

The 52-minute-long documentary film entitled Freedom Song produced by the Public Service Broadcasting Trust and directed by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Subi Chaturvedi seeks to examine issues relating to freedom of expression in a contemporary Indian context. The film raises a number of questions. Has Indian society as a whole become more or less tolerant to dissent even as sections of the population have apparently become increasingly vociferous in protesting against what is considered offensive? Are vocal minorities drowning out the voices of passive majorities in issues pertaining to artistic freedom and independence of expression? Where does one draw a dividing line between an individual's right to offend and her or his obligations towards maintenance of social harmony?

The film includes examples of alleged violations and transgressions of the fundamental right to free expression in contemporary India. Such examples include incidents and episodes relating to why Salman Rushdie’s video conference at the Jaipur Literary Festival had to be called off, the banning of books by Taslima Nasreen by the West Bengal government, controversial paintings by the late Maqbool Fida Hussain, the chopping of the hand of professor of Malayalam T.J. Joseph in Ernakulam, Kerala, the arrest of professor Ambikesh Mohapatra in Kolkata for circulating an e-mail lampooning West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the controversy surrounding a cartoon first published in 1949 which depicts India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the architect of the country’s Constitution B.R. Ambedkar.

These examples are juxtaposed with the views of a cross-section of Indians from different walks of life: lawyers, creative artistes, journalists, politicians, social activists and ordinary individuals.

Film duration: 52 minutes
Year of production: 2012

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta is an independent journalist and an educator. His work experience, spanning more than 35 years, cuts across different media: print, radio, television and documentary cinema. He is a writer, speaker, anchor, interviewer, teacher and commentator in three languages: English, Bengali and Hindi. His main areas of interest are the working of the political economy and the media in India and the world, on which he has authored/co-authored books and directed/produced documentary films. He lectures on these subjects to general audiences and also trains aspiring – and working -- media professionals. He participates frequently in and organizes seminars/conferences, is a regular contributor to newspapers, magazines and websites and is featured on television channels and radio programmes as an anchor as well as an analyst and commentator.

Born on October 5, 1955 and educated at St. Stephen’s College, University of Delhi (1972-75) and at the Delhi School of Economics (1975-77) in the same university from where he obtained his Master’s degree in economics, he started his career as a journalist in June 1977 and has been employed with various media organizations including companies bringing out publications such as Business India, BusinessWorld, The Telegraph, India Today and The Pioneer. He worked with Television Eighteen (now Network 18) for almost six years between 1995 and 2001 when he anchored a daily discussion programme called “India Talks” on the CNBC-India television channel -- nearly 1,400 half-hour episodes were broadcast. From March 2007, he has been anchoring two one-hour-long weekly programmes for Lok Sabha Television (the channel owned and operated by the lower house of the Parliament of India) – a panel discussion called “Talktime” (earlier “Headstart”) and an interview called “1-on-One”. He has anchored programmes for other television channels.

He is (or has been) a visiting faculty member at over a dozen reputed educational institutions including the Indian Institutes of Management at Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Kolkata, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Millia Islamia, Jamia Hamdard University (both in Delhi), the Asian College of Journalism, Chennai, the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, the Film & Television Institute of India, Pune, the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie and the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi. In September 2010, he became a visiting professor in the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Delhi, teaching M.Phil students.

He served as a member of the Press Council of India nominated by the University Grants Commission between January 2008 and January 2011. In April 2010, as a member of a two-member sub-committee of the Council, he co-authored a 36,000-word report entitled “Paid News: How Corruption in the Indian Media Undermines Democracy”.

He is a media trainer and a consultant/adviser on India’s political economy. He was the founder director of the School of Convergence (SoC). He has been a consultant at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, making presentations and writing papers on Indian politics. He has been associated with a number of projects of the United Nations Development Programme and the International Labour Organization (ILO). He moderated two panel discussions at the International Labour Conference at Geneva, Switzerland, in June 2009 and at the ILO’s Asia Pactific Regional Meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in December 2011. He is currently president of the Foundation for Media Professionals, an independent, not-for-profit organization. He has advised various organizations, including corporate bodies (Indian, foreign and multinational), government agencies (including India’s Ministry of Information & Broadcasting) and civil society organizations.

He is a director/producer of documentary films. One entitled “Idiot Box or Window of Hope” which examines the impact of television on Indian society – was produced by the Public Service Broadcasting Trust (PSBT) in 2003 and was broadcast on Doordarshan. In 2006-07, he produced and directed a five-part documentary series in partnership with the PSBT entitled: “Hot As Hell: A Profile of Dhanbad”, different versions of which have been broadcast on various television channels including Doordarshan and NDTV 24x7. In 2007, he directed a documentary film “Grabbing Eyeballs: What’s Unethical About Television News in India” for PSBT that was followed up by another entitled “Advertorial: Selling News or Products?” in 2009. In 2010, he produced and directed a three-part documentary film series entitled “Blood & Iron: A Story of the Convergence of Crime, Business and Politics in Southern India” on the political, economic and ecological consequences of iron ore mining in Bellary (Karnataka) and Ananthapur (Andhra Pradesh). The film has been translated into six Indian languages and broadcast on different television channels. In 2011, he produced and directed a documentary film entitled: “The Great Indian Telecom Robbery”. (He was one of the first journalists to write about the telecommunications spectrum scandal in November 2007 and was one of the petitioners in public-interest litigation petitions on the subject in the Supreme Court of India.) In 2012, he co-directed a film entitled “Freedom Song” that examines freedom of expression in a contemporary Indian context. He has produced/directed a number of other documentary films.

He has co-authored a book with Shankar Raghuraman entitled: “A Time of Coalitions: Divided We Stand”, published by Sage Publications India in March 2004. The book was able to anticipate the outcome of the 14th general elections in India, the results for which came out in May that year. A substantially revised, updated and enlarged version of the book titled “Divided We Stand: India in a Time of Coalitions” was published in December 2007. He has written “Media Ethics: Truth, Fairness and Objectivity, Making and Breaking News” published by Oxford University Press India in March 2009 – the second enlarged edition of the book was published in December 2011. He has contributed articles and chapters to books (including “Realizing Brand India” edited by Sharif D. Rangnekar [Rupa, 2005] and “India: The Political Economy of Reforms” edited by Bibek Debroy & Rahul Mukherji [Bookwell, 2004]).

He is currently engaged in authoring/co-authoring other books and producing/directing documentary films. He has travelled widely in India and across the world. He is a partner of Media Network of India, a firm engaged in designing and creation of content for all media, contract publishing, media training, establishment of radio stations and business development.

Contact details: Paranjoy Guha Thakurta
Work: E-1, Nizamuddin West, 2^nd Floor, New Delhi – 110 013, India
Phone: (+91) (011) 4182-7691; Mobile: (+91) 98101-70435
Home: K-33, South City – I, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122001, India;
E-mail: paranjoy@gmail.com or paranjoy@hotmail.com

For details on the venue: +91-80-67606666

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/freedom-song-film-screening-and-discussion

Don’t SLAPP free speech

sunil — 2013-02-28T11:22:09Z

IIPM is proving adept at the tactical use of lawsuits to stifle criticism, despite safeguards. THE DEPARTMENT of Telecommunications, on 14 February, issued orders to block certain web pages critical of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM).

Sunil Abraham's column with inputs from Snehashish Ghosh was published in Tehelka on February 3, 2013 (Issue 9 Volume 10)

Despite our best efforts, we have not managed to get a copy of the court order. Meanwhile, there has been a lot of speculation among Internet policy experts on Twitter. What is the title of the case? Which judge issued the order? Who is the affected party? Why have mainstream media houses like Outlook not been served notice by the court? Is the infamous Section 66A of the IT Act to be blamed? That is highly unlikely. News reports suggest that a lower court in Gwalior has issued an ad interim injunction in a defamation suit. Most experts agree that this is a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suit, where a company uses the cost of mounting a legal defence to silence critics.

Bullies with deep pockets use the law in very creative ways, such as forum shopping, forum shifting and the use of proxies. Forum shopping can be best understood through the example of mining giant Fomento suing Goan blogger Sebastian Rodrigues for $1 billion at the Kolkata High Court, even though Goa would have been a more logical location. Though IIPM lost an earlier case against Careers360 before the Uttaranchal High Court, the offending URLs from that case are included in the latest block order, exemplifying successful forum shifting. The doctrine of ‘res subjudice’ does not permit courts to proceed in a matter which is “directly and substantially” similar to a previous suit between the same parties. Proxies are usually employed to circumvent this procedural doctrine.

Article 19(2) of our Constitution empowers the State to create laws that place eight types (depending on how you count) of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. One of these reasonable restrictions is defamation. Tort law on defamation in India has been mostly borrowed from common law principles developed in the UK, which include a series of exceptions where the law cannot be used. In the present context, the exceptions important for the IIPM case include: fair and bona fide comment and matter of public interest. In addition, Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code provides for 10 exceptions to defamation. The exceptions relevant to this case are: “first: imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published”, “ninth: imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests” and “tenth: caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good”. The criminal law on defamation in India is based on robust legal principles, but for the sake of public interest it’d be best to do away with such a law as it has far-reaching, chilling effects on free speech.

On interim injunctions in defamation suits, the Delhi High Court set an important precedent protecting free speech in 2011. While applying the English principle — the Bonnard Rule — the court in Tata Sons Pvt Ltd versus Greenpeace International held that a higher standard should be adhered to while granting an interim injunction in a defamation suit, because such an injunction might impinge upon freedom of expression and thus potentially be in violation of the Indian Constitution. This century-old rule states that “until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue… the importance of leaving free speech unfetter – ed is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions…”

In the same case, the Court rejected the argument that since it was published online and thus had wider reach and greater permanence, an injunction should be granted. It observed that “publication is a comprehensive term, embracing all forms and mediums — including the Internet”, thus ruling out special treatment for the Inter net in cases of defamation. That is good news for free speech online in India. Now let’s stick to it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tehelka-sunil-abraham-feb-3-2013-dont-slap-free-speech

Why was the Gwalior court in such a hurry to block IIPM URLs?

praskrishna — 2013-02-19T11:51:43Z

Is it really that easy to get courts to block online content as it appears from the latest case of the blocking of 73 URLs related to IIPM? Legally speaking, yes.

The article by Danish Raza was published in FirstPost on February 19, 2013. Snehashish Ghosh's analysis on blocked sites is quoted.

In cases of defamation, violations of copyright and trademark law and threats to national security, courts can direct the government agency (CERT-in or Computer Emergency Response Team- India) to take down the offending content. And these can be ex-parte orders. Meaning the person or organisation posting the content online is not intimated every time the material is blocked.

Legality aside however, advocates of free speech say that such court orders should be exceptions and not the rule. There is a perception that the process in its current form – right from the filing of court case to the content being taken offline- is opaque.

Traditionally the Internet has been viewed as a more liberal, open and democratic platform as compared to traditional media. Through such orders, says Delhi based advocate and expert on cyber law Apar Gupta, courts seem to give out a warning that online content is not outside the purview of the law.

The problem in this case however, is not the ‘warning’ itself. It is the way that the warning is being given that is setting the wrong precedent.

The blocks on IIPM related URLs is based on an interim order passed by a Gwalior court. The head of the institute, Arindam Chaudhuri in an exclusive interview with Firstpost, said that the case was filed last year by one his ‘channel partners’. He added that the court had made him a party in the case only in January and he would soon respond to court orders.

Three of the affected parties (Careers 360, Caravan and Kafila), however, said that they were never informed about the blocks, reported Mint.

After the block orders, Shivam Vij, founder of the blog, Kafila, told Firstpost, “This is against the principle of natural justice. The court blocked the URL of my blog without giving me a chance to defend myself.

While there are occasions warranting the urgent removal of content, experts say similar exigency need not be shown in cases of defamatory content.

In his analysis of blocked URLs related to IIPM, Snehashish Ghosh from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore based organisation, notes that according to the Bonnard Rule, in a defamation case, interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level. “Therefore, it appears that the (Gwalior) Court order has moved away from the settled principles of law while awarding an interim injunction for blocking of content related to IIPM”, says the report.

Commenting on court ordered blocks, Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director of IT for change, a Bangalore based organisation which works on internet governance issues, says, “When there is clear imminent danger or threat to the society, as in case of possible rioting, immediate removal of content without notifying and hearing the other party is understandable. But defamatory content does not fall in this category. Decisions on such largely civil matter should be taken with due deep consideration, after listening to all parties. And by far the considerations of free speech should have overwhelming weight in making decisions.”

Singh adds that “Even if it is considered necessary to remove any content, a fully transparent process has to be followed.”

The most common reason cited for not sending notices before removing the content is the tiresome process of zeroing in on the one person or authority responsible for posting the content, says Prabir Purkayastha of Knowledge Commons, an organisation which promotes open source information. “If you approach intermediaries such as Google or Yahoo, they will rightly say that they can provide details only if they are allowed to do as per international treaties,” says Purkayastha. But when there is clarity on who put the content online, like in the IIPM case, he says, “DoT cannot absolve itself from the responsibility of writing at least an email to these entities.”

In the case of Tata Sons Ltd. vs Green Peace International, cited by Ghosh of CIS, the Delhi High Court addressed the question whether posting or publishing of libelous material on the Internet calls for a different standard. Ghosh writes, “The court decided that there cannot be a separate standard for the Internet while awarding temporary injunction in defamation cases. The wider viewership or accessibility compared to other medium does not alter the fact that it is a medium.”

Purkayastha agrees. “Freedom of speech and expression and the restraints on it, as enshrined in the constitution, should not depend on the medium of expression. But due to the haste shown by courts in blocking online content, it appears that courts seem be applying two sets of standards with respect to Internet and traditional media,” he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-feb-19-2013-danish-raza-why-was-the-gwalior-court-in-such-a-hurry-to-block-iipm-urls

Freedom of Expression Gagged

chinmayi — 2013-02-18T08:55:36Z

The use of law to bully people into silence, called ‘heckler’s veto’, is not unique to India, writes Chinmayi Arun in this op-ed published in Business Line on February 15, 2013.

Click to read the original published in the Business Line.

Freedom of expression in India is under threat. This year we have the Tamil Nadu government’s ban on Vishwaroopam, the Ashis Nandy FIR, the smothering of Kashmir’s first all girls rock band’s music, and the removal of semi-nude paintings of Hindu deities from an art gallery upon the police’s ‘suggestion’. Another Rushdie-banning controversy is upon us, and yet another Facebook user’s arrest has made the news.

Clearly, our right to freedom of expression is under an ongoing siege. The onslaught comes in varied forms: bullying by members of society, informal government action with the overhanging threat of the law, and direct use of the law (and of a variety of legislations within it). Each form is encouraged, exacerbated even, by our problematic interpretation of freedom of expression principles. Our law allows a group of intolerant people to silence a speaker by creating a threat to public order or by threatening the speaker directly, and our state is proving utterly ineffectual in protecting speech from intolerance.

Instruments Deployed

India’s first Kashmiri all-girls band is tragic proof of horizontal attacks on speech – their music was silenced by the grandmufti’s declaring it ‘un-Islamic’, and the attendant social pressure that tends to follow. They were not protected from this horizontal attack. The Palghar incident also had echoes of horizontal pressure, which was used to directly bully Shaheen Dhada, via friends advising her to apologise and strangers slapping her, before the instrument of the law was used to bully her further.

The instrument of the law can be used in invisible, informal ways, as Bangalore’s Chitrakala Parishath incident illustrates. Here, the pressure of police ‘suggestion’, carrying the implied threat of the force of the law, was used to ensure that semi-nude paintings of Hindu deities were removed from an exhibition. It appears that this police ‘suggestion’ was motivated by the fear that those paintings could trigger law and order problems.

Vishwaroopam was banned using the law, specifically section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the government to issue orders “in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger”. However, orders issued under section 144 would still need to observe the boundaries drawn for it in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Freedom and Public Order

Some may argue that controversial or offensive speech can legitimately be restricted since “public order” is one of the grounds for which our Constitution permits the restriction of the freedom of expression. However the original text of the Constitution did not include “public order” among its permissible grounds for restriction. This was inserted in the First Amendment of the Constitution, but was fortunately accompanied by the word ‘reasonable’ before restriction, thus ensuring that the freedom of expression can only be reasonably restricted under the exceptional circumstances listed in the Constitution.

This insertion of ‘public order’ came after the Supreme Court’s invalidation of government pre-censorship of speech on public order grounds in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), declaring that the Constitution required that “nothing less than endangering the foundations of the State or threatening its overthrow could justify curtailment of the rights to freedom of speech and expression”. Therefore, Parliament amended the Constitution to expand the grounds on which the state could restrict speech, and included ‘public order’ among the expanded grounds. The trouble with this is that the intolerant are now able to create a public order problem to silence speakers.

The Supreme Court of India, in Babulal Parate vs State Of Maharashtra (1961) found that public order must be “maintained in advance in order to ensure it”, and ruled that restriction of Article 19 freedoms of expression and assembly in the interests of public order is permissible. However, all such restrictions must continue to satisfy the reasonability test laid down in the Constitution, providing our judiciary with the opportunity to ensure that intolerance does not continue to oppress speech.

The Heckler's Veto

The use of law to bully people into silence is not unique to India. Harry Kalven termed this ‘the hecklers’ veto’: if police action silences speakers for fear that the offended listeners might create a law and order problem, this effectively allows the listeners to veto what the speaker can say. There was a time when the heckler’s veto held sway in the United States and the United Kingdom. However, both countries’ legal principles have evolved to stop pandering to the intolerant, and it is time that India does the same.

Justice Hugo Black of the US Supreme Court, in his Feiner v. New York (1951) dissent, argued that the police must make all reasonable efforts to protect the speaker’s constitutional right to speak before interfering with this right. This dissenting opinion was later hailed as visionary. The US Supreme Court subsequently gradually recognised the evils of the heckler’s veto, which privileges and encourages intolerance. The United Kingdom also progressively narrowed its reading of the Public Order Act to ensure that speech is not restricted unless immediate violence is feared, and is now decriminalising insults which are not directed at a clearly identifiable victim.

The Indian Supreme Court’s judgment in the Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) echoes Justice Black’s denouncement of the heckler’s veto. It declares, “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That would tantamount to …surrender to blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem”. However other judgments have shied away from confronting the fact that speech-related public order problems created by intolerance, not by speech.

Our legal system needs to take a firm, consistent stand against the heckler’s veto. We need to stop mirroring the evils of outdated law in fresh legislations like the Information Technology Act, and work instead to remove law and practices that institutionalise intolerance.

(The author teaches at National Law University, Delhi and is Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindubusinessline-feb-15-2013-chinmayi-arun-freedom-of-expression-gagged

Analyzing the Latest List of Blocked URLs by Department of Telecommunications (IIPM Edition)

snehashish — 2013-02-17T07:35:25Z

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in its order dated February 14, 2013 has issued directions to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block seventy eight URLs. The block order has been issued as a result of a court order. Snehashish Ghosh does a preliminary analysis of the list of websites blocked as per the DoT order.

Medianama has published the DoT order, dated February 14, 2013, on its website.

What has been blocked?

The block order contains seventy eight URLs. Seventy three URLs are related to the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM). The other five URLs contain the term “highcourt”. The order also contains links from reputed news websites and news blogs including The Indian Express, Firstpost, Outlook, Times of India, Economic Times, Kafila and Caravan Magazine, and satire news websites Faking News and Unreal Times. The order also directs blocking of a public notice issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

The block order does not contain links to any social media website. However, some content related to IIPM has been removed but it finds no mention in the block order. Pursuant to which order or direction such content has been removed remains unclear. For example, Google has removed search results for the terms <Fake IIPM> pursuant to Court orders and it carries the following notice:

"In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."

Are there any mistakes in the order?

The direction issued by the DoT is once again inaccurate and mired with errors. In effect, the DoT has blocked sixty one unique URLs and the block order contains numerous repetitions. By its order the DoT has directed the ISPs to block an entire blog [http://iipmexposed.blogspot.in] along with URLs to various posts in the same blog.

Reasons for Blocking Websites

According to news reports, the main reason for blocking of websites by the DoT is a Court order issued by a Court in Gwalior. The reason for issuing such a block order might have been a court proceeding with respect to defamation and removal of defamatory content thereof. However, the reasons for blocking of domain names containing the term ‘high court’, which is not at all related to the IIPM Court case is unclear. The DoT by its order has also blocked a link in the website of a internet domain registrar which carried advertisement for the domain name [www.highcourt.com].

Are the blocks legitimate?

The block order may have been issued by the DoT under Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

The Court order seems to be an interim injunction in a defamation suit. Generally, Courts exercise utmost caution while granting interim injunction in defamation cases. According to the Bonnard Rule (Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch 269) in a defamation case, “interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level.” Moreover, in the case of Woodward and Frasier, Lord Denning noted “that it would be unjust to fetter the freedom of expression, when actually a full trial had not taken place, and that if during trial it is proved that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff, then should they be liable to pay the damages.” The Delhi High Court in Tata Sons Ltd. v. Green Peace International followed the Bonnard Rule and the Lord Denning’s judgements and ruled against the award of interim injunction for removal of defamatory content and stated:

“The Court notes that the rule in Bonnard is as applicable in regulating grant of injunctions in claims against defamation, as it was when the judgment was rendered more than a century ago. This is because the Courts, the world over, have set a great value to free speech and its salutary catalyzing effect on public debate and discussion on issues that concern people at large. The issue, which the defendant’s game seeks to address, is also one of public concern. The Court cannot also sit in value judgment over the medium (of expression) chosen by the defendant since in a democracy, speech can include forms such as caricature, lampoon, mime parody and other manifestations of wit.”

Therefore, it appears that the Court order has moved away from the settled principles of law while awarding an interim injunction for blocking of content related to IIPM. It is also interesting to note that in Green Peace International, the Court also answered the question as to whether there should be different standard for posting or publication of defamatory content on the internet. It was observed by the Court that publication is a comprehensive term, ‘embracing all forms and medium – including the Internet’.

Blocking a Public Notice issued by a Statutory Body of Government of India

The block order mentions a URL which contains a public notice issued by University Grants Commission (UGC) related to the derecognition of IIPM as a University. The blocking of a public notice issued by the statutory body of the Government of India is unprecedented. A public notice issued by a statutory body is a function of the State. It can only be blocked or removed by a writ order issued by the High Court or the Supreme Court and only if it offends the Constitution. However, so far, ISPs such as BSNL have not enforced the blocking of this URL.

Implementation of the order by the ISPs

As pointed out in my previous blog post on blocking of websites, the ISPs have again failed to notify their consumers the reasons for the blocking of the URLs. This lack of transparency in the implementation of the block order has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analyzing-latest-list-of-blocked-urls-by-dot

Hate speech: ban or ignore?

praskrishna — 2013-02-13T09:40:37Z

The Social Network discusses the hate speeches: whether they should be banned or ignored. Why does the state take action against some and not against some others. This on a day when Togadia and Owaisi were simultaneously trending on the social media.

This discussion was aired on NDTV on February 5, 2013

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, and Shivam Vij of Kafila.com joined NDTV in the studio while actor and standup comic Sanjay Rajoura joined via webcam.

Pranesh said that the talk of banning these videos is foolish. He added, I don't think that is a solution. But the issue is one of criminal prosecution – whether that should happen or not, and with regard to the interesting dichotomy that Shivam pointed out some people are calling for somethings to be banned but not others. I think that kind of hypocrisy should be pointed out. I am happy that these small incidents of hate mongering are actually being blown out of proportion on social media because it actually gets people to react...to say wait a second...that is not right I might have a certain leanings towards Hindutva but that kind of speech is not what I support, or I might have a certain leanings towards what is called "pseudo-secularism" but that kind of speech is not what I support. So getting out that discussion out is important.

If we were on one hand a society where we had communal peace and then social media were focusing on these small kinds of incidents and blowing it out of proportion then that would be a problem.

Watch the full discussion aired on NDTV

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-the-social-network-feb-5-2013-hate-speech-ban-or-ignore

Anonymous joins protests against Internet shutdown in Kashmir

praskrishna — 2013-03-01T04:46:06Z

Hacktivist group Anonymous joined thousands of others to protest the shutdown of internet services in Kashmir for the fourth consecutive day by authorities after the hanging of Afzal Guru, a key accused in the Parliament attack case.

Indu Nandakumar's article was published in the Economic Times on February 12, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Anonymous, which shot to fame in India after it brought down the websites of the Supreme Court and Congress Party last year, on Tuesday expressed its support to the people of Kashmir until the ban on internet and media services are lifted.

"We stand with # Kashmiras it comes to the end of its 3rd day under curfew. The comms blockade will fall. We are with you. # KashmirNow," a message posted on one of the Twitter accounts of Anonymous read.

Another Twitter account of the same group said, "#OpKashmir - Lift the media and internet blackout in #Kashmir".

Mobile internet services were suspended across Kashmir Valley on Saturday after the hanging of Afzal Guru in New Delhi. Online protests gathered steam by evening and thousands took to Twitter to express their anger censorships and blockades.

A senior official from the Department of Telecom, which had last year ordered the blocking of several Twitter accounts and websites, said internet services were blocked to avoid any further escalation of violence in Kashmir. But internet experts said a ban of communication services do not result in peace, instead it curtails the basic right of citizens to exchange messages.

"Government can ban certain class of messages and certain class of users, but definitely not a blanket ban of all services," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society.

Essential commodities such as medicines, newspapers etc too are in short supply in Kashmir, where three people died and over 50 were injured in clashes since Saturday.

Anonymous has also been posting photographs from the region. One of the Twitter accounts of the group, @ anon_warlockon Tuesday tweeted, "A gag has been put on everything, information at best is trickling down".

Last year, Anonymous, known for its use of Guy Fawkes masks, had organised rallies across Indian cities to protest internet censorship after India's Department of Telecom blocked over 250 websites and 30 Twitter accounts for posting communal images and videos that led to people from Northeast exit Bangalore and a few other Indian cities.

"Internet service providers in the Valley were asked by officials in the Ministry of Home Affairs to switch off connectivity on Saturday morning. There has been no further communication from the Ministry until now and we don't expect any withdrawal in the next few days," a senior industry executive with direct knowledge of the matter told ET. He added that any decision on withdrawal of the ban will be taken only after the MHA and intelligence officials take stock of the situation.

Centre of Internet's Abraham said he was not sure if messages on social media were being taken seriously by the government. "Research shows that during the times of public disruption, ban of communication services will only make things worse. Enlightened governments should know this and act accordingly."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-feb-12-2013-indu-nandakumar-anonymous-joins-protests-against-internet-shutdown-in-kashmir

Indian net service providers too play censorship tricks

praskrishna — 2013-02-13T04:20:53Z

The study by a Canadian university has found that some major Indian ISPs have deployed web-censorship and filtering technology.

The article by T Ramachandran was published in the Hindu on February 9, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Your internet service provider (ISP) could be blocking some content. A study conducted by a Canadian university has found that some major Indian ISPs have deployed web-censorship and filtering technology widely used in China and some West Asian countries.

The findings, published on January 15, were the result of a search for censorship software and hardware on public networks like those operated by ISPs.

A research team at Citizen Lab, an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, found a software-hardware combo package called PacketShaper being used in many parts of the world, including India.

The study identified the presence of four PacketShaper installations on the networks of three major ISPs in India during the period of study in late 2012. These ISPs had been earlier “implicated in filtering to some degree,” the report said.

The deployment of such traffic management technologies by ISPs could threaten privacy, freedom of expression and competition, said Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Bangalore-based NGO, Centre for Internet and Society.

He said tools like PacketShaper could be used by ISPs for two types of censorship —“to block entire websites or choke traffic on certain services or destinations in a highly granular fashion.”

The U.S.-based producers of the technology, Blue Coat Systems, are quite open about the product features on the company’s website. They say it could be used to control and weed out undesirable content. It could also be used to slow down or speed up the operation of programmes and content flow to achieve the goals set by the operators of the networks.

Transparency is the key

Technology experts said such products could be used to exercise legitimate control over the internet traffic and prioritise the use of bandwidth and resources, if used ethically.

“If done in a transparent manner that does not discriminate against different actors within a class it does benefit the collective interest of the ISP’s clients. However, it could also be used to engage in hidden censorship against legitimate speech and also for anti-competitive behaviour,” said Mr. Abraham.

The study focussed on countries where concerns exist over “compliance with international human rights law, legal due process, freedom of speech, surveillance, and censorship.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-feb-9-2013-t-ramachandran-indian-net-service-providers-too-play-censorship-tricks

Online Abuse of Teen Girls in Kashmir Leads to Arrests

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T03:51:20Z

Online abuse and a fatwa aimed at a rock band of Muslim teenage girls in Kashmir have led to arrests and a threat of a lawsuit.

This article by Betwa Sharma was published in the New York Times on February 8, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Three men were arrested this week for posting threatening messages on the Facebook page of Praagaash, an amateur rock band in Indian-occupied Kashmir made of up Muslim girls. “The investigation is ongoing,” said Manoj Pandita, spokesman for the Jammu and Kashmir police, indicating that more arrests may follow.

The three men were charged under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which applies to “offensive” messages being sent through communication services, and Section 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code, which applies to criminal intimidation. Mr. Pandita said that it had been easy to track the I.P. addresses of the Facebook users.

A prominent human rights lawyer, Parvez Imroz of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, is planning to sue the top religious leader in Kashmir, who called for the fatwa, for “demonizing Kashmir before the international community” and for “running a parallel judicial system in the valley.”

Mr. Imroz told India Ink that human rights organizations like his needed support from the international community to highlight their concerns, and such fatwas reflected badly on the Kashmiri society. “He is diverting attention away from real issues of human rights to nonissues like music and purdah,” Mr. Imroz said.

The fatwa against the band was issued by the Grand Mufti Bashiruddin Ahmad.

In his fatwa, Mr. Ahmad advised women to only sing inside the house to other female members of the family, and wear a veil whenever they left the house. “They must stay within limits,” he said.

Following the band’s first live performance in December, Aneeqa Khalid, Noma Nazir and Farah Deeba, 10th-grade students who are 15 and 16 years old, became the target of abuse and threats on Facebook by people who accused them of being un-Islamic because they had performed in public, especially before men. Some commenters called them “sluts” and “prostitutes;” others suggested that they should be raped.

The band Praagaash, which means “darkness into light,” disbanded following a national controversy surrounding these threatening messages. The threats were condemned by many, including the state’s chief minister.

To many Kashmiris, both the fatwa and the arrests by the government are unnecessary. Some say that the controversy erupted after the state’s chief minister, Omar Abdullah, got involved by expressing his support for the band on Twitter and then calling for investigation against those writing the threatening messages.

“Nobody here had a problem with the rock band,” said Aala Fazili, a doctorate student at Kashmir University, pointing out that the band’s performance in December had not led to any protests or physical threats against them.

Mr. Fazili, 32, added that people shouldn’t be arrested for writing abusive posts on Facebook. “You cannot call an abuse a threat,” he said.

Mr. Pandita, the Kashmir police spokesman, said the investigators were making a distinction between a threat and abuse on the basis of “gravity.”

Pranesh Prakash, from the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, asked whether people who hold protests calling for the death of the author Salman Rushdie should also be arrested for making threats.

“I would hold that no expression of violent thoughts, online or offline, should be made criminal, even if it is repugnantly misogynistic, unless it takes the form of a credible threat that causes harm, or is harassment that constitutes harm,” he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ny-times-feb-8-2013-betwa-sharma-online-abuse-of-teen-girls-in-kashmir-leads-to-arrests